Appeal No. 2004-1133
Application No. 09/796,253
it touches the mold to form a mold shape that corresponds to the
final foamed surface structure (Brief, pages 2-3).
Appellant states that claims 1 and 2 are separately argued but
the remaining claims 3-19 stand or fall with claim 1 (Brief, page
7). Therefore we limit our consideration to claims 1 and 2. See
37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2000). A copy of claim 1 is attached as an
Appendix to this decision.
The examiner has relied upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Masui et al. (Masui) 4,623,584 Nov. 18, 1986
Hara et al. (Hara) 5,281,376 Jan. 25, 1994
Claims 1-12, 14 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Masui (Answer, page 3). Claims 13 and 15-18
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Masui
in view of Hara (Answer, page 4). We affirm both of the rejections
on appeal essentially for the reasons stated by the examiner in the
Answer. We add the following comments primarily for emphasis.
OPINION
The examiner finds that Masui discloses a method of producing
a composite component with a foamed surface including (1) placing a
substrate part having a surface to be coated into a mold; (2)
applying a layer of unfoamed foamable material to the surface of
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007